Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Sine
@sinusoidalsnail
Tysso II Hydropower Plant (Norway) Geir Grung, 1967
6 replies
12 recasts
41 reactions
@na
was wondering how brutalist power plant arch teams got governmental approval over these
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Phil Cockfield
@pjc
Tom Wolf wrote about this in "From My House to Bauhaus" Concrete modernism became a favourite for administrators, mostly because it didn't take creative risks for them to cargo cult the prevailing architectural trend, and most modernism was an easy copy-n-paste from the basic idea...flat square surfaces made of concrete). And the upshot is that most of it was ugly ugly ugly, and soulless, you know...like enterprise software š. These examples in /brutalist are the exception, not the norm I reckon. To me, the miracle is when an architect smuggles quality through the gatekeeping committee, without triggering the creative immune system to reject something "good". (wow...I must be in a cynical mood)
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Sine
@sinusoidalsnail
Oooh very interesting! I think it was also cheap material/design. Which probably made it ideal for government buildings. Where I live, it actually appears ONLY in government buildings and utilities. I guess because there wasn't much new commercial construction during the 60s-70s. And most of it is nothing fancy. Just boring. But in places like Europe, where there was lots of rebuilding of all types during that time, maybe that's why they have more attractive (non-government) buildings there? As you say, though, it's really cool when it's BOTH practical and attractive.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
